A Short Treatise on Hindu Law: As Administered in the Courts of British India

A Short Treatise on Hindu Law: As Administered in the Courts of British India

by Herbert Cowell
     
 
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free.
This is an OCR edition with typos.
Excerpt from book:
CHAPTER IV. The Joint Estate.—Power Of Alienation.— The Manager. Power of alienation according to the Bengal school—Of the coparcener—Of the manager or

Overview

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free.
This is an OCR edition with typos.
Excerpt from book:
CHAPTER IV. The Joint Estate.—Power Of Alienation.— The Manager. Power of alienation according to the Bengal school—Of the coparcener—Of the manager or Kurta—According to the Mitakshara—Of the manager— Of the father—Right of the coparcener to dispute alienation—Limitations of the manager's authority—Restrictions on the father's power of alienation—Doctrines by which that power has been extended—Son's liability for his father's debts when not immoral—Hunoomanpershad Panday v. Mussamut Babooee—Gridharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall—Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh. A Scheme of aggregate ownership gives rise to a special law of alienation as well as to a special law of enjoyment. There is a broad difference between the systems of the Dayabhaga and Mitakshara in reference to the power of alienation. Under the Bengal school the father is absolute owner, with an unfettered power of alienation. On his death, when his heirs jointly succeed, each co-heir has a separate right to an ascertained share, and has full power of alienation over his share, even while the property continues to be held by them in common as coparceners. The absolute disposing power of a Hindu father under the Bengal school was not established without considerable discussion. But in 1831 the judges of the Supreme and Sudder Courts in consultation declared that "a Hindu who has sons can sell, give, or pledge, without their consent, immovable, ancestral propertysituate in the province of Bengal; and that without their consent he can by will prevent, alter, or effect theirsuccession to such property." (a) It is now clearly settled beyond all further question that the Hindu law, according to the school of Bengal, makes no distinction between ancestral or joint and self-acquired property as respects the right of ...

Product Details

ISBN-13:
2940029852830
Publisher:
Thacker, Spink
Format:
NOOK Book
File size:
348 KB

Read an Excerpt


CHAPTER IV. The Joint Estate. Power Of Alienation. The Manager. Power of alienation according to the Bengal school Of the coparcener Of the manager or Kurta According to the Mitakshara Of the manager Of the father Right of the coparcener to dispute alienation Limitations of the manager's authority Restrictions on the father's power of alienation Doctrines by which that power has been extended Son's liability for his father's debts when not immoral Hunoomanpershad Panday v. Mussamut Babooee Gridharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh. A Scheme of aggregate ownership gives rise to a special law of alienation as well as to a special law of enjoyment. There is a broad difference between the systems of the Dayabhaga and Mitakshara in reference to the power of alienation. Under the Bengal school the father is absolute owner, with an unfettered power of alienation. On his death, when his heirs jointly succeed, each co-heir has a separate right to an ascertained share, and has full power of alienation over his share, even while the property continues to be held by them in common as coparceners. The absolute disposing power of a Hindu father under the Bengal school was not established without considerable discussion. But in 1831 the judges of the Supreme and Sudder Courts in consultation declared that "a Hindu who has sons can sell, give, or pledge, without their consent, immovable, ancestral property situate in the province of Bengal; and that without their consent he can by will prevent, alter, or effect theirsuccession to such property." (a) It is now clearly settled beyond all further question that the Hindu law, according to the school of Bengal, makes nodistinction between ancestral or joint and self-acquired property as respects the right of ...

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >